Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV40548, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40548    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Johnathan Ramirez (“Ramirez”) filed Case No. 21STCV16857 against defendants Demetra Johal (“Johal”), Margaret A. Tally, Co-Trustee of the Tally Family Trust (“Tally”), and Gordon McDonough (“McDonough”) for injuries relating to an alleged dog attack.  Ramirez alleges that on the date of the incident, he was delivering a package when he was chased by a dog and forced to jump over bushes to escape, which caused him to sustain injury. 

Plaintiff Old Republic Insurance Company (“Old Republic”) filed Case No. 21STCV40548 against Johal, Tally, and McDonough for subrogation to recover workers’ compensation benefits paid by or on behalf of Old Republic for Ramirez’s injuries.  On March 9, 2022, the cases were deemed related, with 21STCV40548 being designated the lead case.  On April 27, 2022, the cases were ordered consolidated pursuant to a Joint Stipulation to Consolidate Case Nos. 21STCV40548 and 21STCV16857 signed by all parties that have appeared in this action.  Ramirez has dismissed Johal, Tally, and Does 1 to 50 from his complaint. 

Trial in this matter is currently set for May 3, 2023.  At this time, Tally moves to continue the current trial date to a date after December 20, 2023.  Johal filed a joinder to the motion, and Old Republic filed an opposition to the motion.    

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, Tally asserts that it was unable to set a motion for summary judgment for hearing prior to the current trial date, and the earliest available hearing date was December 20, 2023, more than seven months after the trial date.  Further, Tally asserts that Tally wishes to depose additional witnesses regarding the incident.  Johal joins in the motion asserting that Johal has been seeking Old Republic’s voluntary dismissal of Johal, and that Old Republic recently propounded additional discovery on Johal.  Johal contends that she requires additional time to further litigate her defenses against Old Republic. 

In opposition, Old Republic contends that good cause is not shown for a continuance, and that at most only one or two witnesses still need to be deposed.  Old Republic contends that the action is not complicated, and Old Republic should not be forced to keep litigating this matter. 

A trial court cannot refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of CCP § 437c.  (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.)  However, to date, Tally has not filed a motion for summary judgment in this matter.  (Cole v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2022) 2022 WL 17999483 at *2 [“But the fact remains that the motion was timely filed, and calendaring issues are not a basis on which the trial court can refuse to hear a timely filed summary judgment motion, absent an indication that it was defective under section 437c.” (Emphasis Added.)].)  Nevertheless, the last day for Tally to file a summary judgment motion based on the current trial date is January 18, 2023.  Tally, thus, could still timely file a motion for summary judgment, and denying the instant motion to require Tally to first file its motion for summary judgment before continuing the trial date would be a waste of the parties’ and Court’s resources.  Furthermore, putting aside the issues concerning the summary judgment motion, the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting a trial continuance.  Tally is making this motion almost four months before the current trial date, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial, and there have been no prior trial continuances in this action.  There are no alternative means identified to address these issues, and as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Tally properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for a motion for summary judgment.  Additionally, all parties identify discovery that has not been completed yet, so a continuance will allow the parties to adequately prepare for trial, and Old Republic does not identify any prejudice other than that inherent in the continuance itself. 

            Given the length of the continuance that will be necessitated, the parties should expect no further continuances.  They must plan their case accordingly. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The May 3, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The April 19, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 12^th day of January 2023